Why online piracy isn't theft

Let's say that our morality has consistently and considerably dropped in the last decade or so. I see people stealing everyday, everywhere, and this is considered smart these days. And this article just proves it, by making the case that stealing intellectual property is not stealing. Decadence.
 
I read this a few times to make sure I didn't miss something. None of it makes any sense to me. We all know that that many things are situational, and stealing some things is worse, or lesser, than stealing other things. Sometimes it depends on circumstances. If a father steals food because his family is starving, and it's because no one will hire the father due to his race/religion/etc, that's one thing. Yes, it's still stealing, but I'd do it too. It's doing what you need to do. But what if someone who DOESN'T need to steal (nearly everyone I've ever met in the US) decides to steal, that's a totally different situation. That's theft w/ a capital T. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure intent and situation are taken into account in a court of law, before a judge or jury decides on an appropriate punishment.

Stealing someone's intellectual work, whether it's been put into concrete form w/ a product or is simple just written down as a draft on a piece of paper ( being in a PDF format on a computer would be exactly the same) is stealing. In the case of an artist's or writer's work for example, even if it only exists in a draft form and no book or painting/drawing/etc has been created, it's still stealing someone else's work. I don't see how this can be misconstrued.
 
EdwardKaraa said:
Let's say that our morality has consistently and considerably dropped in the last decade or so. I see people stealing everyday, everywhere, and this is considered smart these days. And this article just proves it, by making the case that stealing intellectual property is not stealing. Decadence.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it seems you didn't get the point of the article at all. The point is, to quote the text, that "we should stop trying to shoehorn the 21st-century problem of illegal downloading into a moral and legal regime that was developed with a pre- or mid-20th-century economy in mind."

It's not that people are so decadent or morally corrupt nowadays that they think stealing is ok. It's not the people's morals that have changed in the last decade (at least not in regards to theft), it's the world that has changed. Illegal downloading would've been just as much of a problem 20 years ago if it had been possible back then.
The thing is, most people still think stealing is wrong which is why they don't steal in their everyday lives. Why then do they still illegally download stuff off the internet? Well, because they're quite aware of the fact that what they're doing is not stealing. What they're not aware of is what exactly it is that they are doing and what effects it has on other people's livelihoods. Blatantly false equations won't educate anyone.
 
My career is in software, so I'm pretty anti-piracy, and anti-copyright infringement. However, I agree with Jamie, that it's not truly theft and should not be punished like it was. The fact is if someone uses one of my photos without asking, then I've not lost anything, I've just not gained anything. However, I do believe that for the sake of many industries, copyright does need to be protected, just not in the way it is now.

Basically, we need to use the law the way it was always meant to be, and let the punishment fit the crime. Copyright theft, especially if it's not for profit, should be pretty low down on the list of priorities for law enforcement, IMHO.

Also, I think that the law needs to be a lot more centred around fair-use. For example, if I purchase a movie on iTunes , my Playstation 3, or some other means, that should mean that I own rights to watch that movie, period. Not just on Apple devices, not just on Sony devices, not just where my devices can contact a DRM server.

If priced reasonably and fairly, most people I believe have no trouble paying for intellectual property.
 
Hi,

Hmmm, well now, one of my books from the 70's was scanned and posted on the www and hundreds of copies downloaded. I feel they've been stolen from me...

Regards, David
 
All the good professor is saying is that illegal downloading, while a problem, is not theft. We should call it something else (e.g., unauthorized use) or invent new nomenclature. Okay, check.
 
BULLSH!T! I invest my money and efforts into developing a piece of software for sale and someone illegally uses a copy and does not pay us for it, that is theft. They stole it from us and did not pay for it. Same applies to music or games.

It becomes a very different situation when it is your money that you were counting on to feed your kids and not some distant large corporation.

Anyone who does not understand it is pure theft should have no problems with someone downloads one of their photos and uses it for commercial purposes without acknowledgement of payment. Exactly the same thing.

FWIW, I have owned clear undisputed license for every piece of software on my computer since 1986 when I invested in a software company.
 
Lot's of conscious big gaps in the article, Jamie:

Jamie123 said:
The thing is, most people still think stealing is wrong which is why they don't steal in their everyday lives. Why then do they still illegally download stuff off the internet?
Click to expand...

1) People illegally download for the same reason that they commit traffic violations consciously and often agressively. They feel anonymous and protected.

2) Modern copyright theft includes non internet activities that were the same more than 20 years ago, such as copying and distributing via physical media (paper, tapes, floppies, etc.); don't forget, even today, the majority of the world population doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download an entire movie, but rather uses a DVD copy.

3) Patent infringement has nothing to do with the internet.

For Caveman Bob to “steal” from Caveman Joe meant that Bob had taken something of value from Joe — say, his favorite club — and that Joe, crucially, no longer had it. Everyone recognized, at least intuitively, that theft constituted what can loosely be defined as a zero-sum game: what Bob gained, Joe lost.
Click to expand...

4) That zero-sum game changed as soon as Bob and Joe invented money, didn't it ?

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement 🙂

Roland.
 
kxl said:
All the good professor is saying is that illegal downloading, while a problem, is not theft. We should call it something else (e.g., unauthorized use) or invent new nomenclature. Okay, check.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Thank you. I can't believe that's so hard for people to understand as the article is pretty straight forward.
It's not at all about whether one is worse than the other.
 
The end result is that not only does this change the business model, it changes the type of product delivered to consumers. Certain types of products are no longer commercially viable due to a combination of piracy and resales (which in the case of digital media doesn't degrade with use/resale).

I'm in the game development and it certainly has permeated discussions in my industry for years.
 
Jamie123 said:
Exactly! Thank you. I can't believe that's so hard for people to understand as the article is pretty straight forward.
It's not at all about whether one is worse than the other.
Click to expand...

Because the article is wrong. Copyright infringement and illegal downloading is easy to equate to theft for me, because of the monetary value of what is stolen. Enough said.
 
We can chose as a society to call it anything we wish, but I missed the part of the article that made a compelling argument for not calling illegal downloads "theft."

Certainly the people doing the stealing would be happy to change things, I'm less sure of the people being stolen from.
 
So - if I pirate their site, copy every article to publish on my URL and sell advertising... the NYT would be cool with that, huh?
 
ferider said:
Because the article is wrong. Copyright infringement and illegal downloading is easy to equate to theft for me, because of the monetary value of what is stolen. Enough said.
Click to expand...

It may be easy to equate to theft for you and me, and we may call it anything we want, but the professor is making a technical argument. In fact, in the case of Megaupload, the Justice Dept. has not charged Megaupload with THEFT, but rather copyright infringement, conspiracy to defruad, etc...).

The distnction is imporant in court, since a strict statutory definition of the crime of theft may allow Megaupload to walk, whereas, the other charges are more likely to get a conviction.

That's really the gist of the article, misplaced morale outrage from RFF'ers aside.
 
ferider said:
Lot's of conscious big gaps, in this article, Jamie:

1) People illegally download for the same reason that they commit traffic violations consciously and often agressively. They feel anonymous and protected.
Click to expand...

Not quite. For the most part people commit traffic violations because they think they can benefit from them without causing any harm to either themselves or others. And unless they cause an accident or get a ticket they're actually right. It's just the risk that's the problem.
And while it's true that some people steal when they know they won't get caught, I don't think this holds true for the majority of people. We all encounter situations in our everyday lives where we could steal something without getting caught yet few of us do it.


2) Modern copyright theft includes non internet activities that were the same more than 20 years ago, such as copying and distributing via physical media (paper, tapes, floppies, etc.); don't forget, even today, the majority of the world population doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download an entire movie, but rather uses a DVD copy.
Click to expand...

I don't quite get your point. The intangible asset isn't the medium but the information on the medium, be it paper, disk or DVD. The problem only really became this significant in the age of the internet because of the ease of information transfer which makes it much harder to enforce any kind of restrictions. And the majority of the world who doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download a movie is really not significant as they couldn't afford to buy movies anyways.


3) Patent infringement has nothing to do with the internet.
Click to expand...

Sure, but nowhere in the article does it say that. As far as I can see the only time patents are mentioned is as an example of intangible assets. The point is moot.

4) That zero-sum game changed for Bob and Joe, as soon as they invented money, didn't it ?
Click to expand...

Not really. For a long time exchange of money for goods was still a zero sum game. And if you have a closed system with a fixed amount of money than the exchange of money amongst the participants of said system is still a zero-sum game.

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement 🙂
Click to expand...

Maybe, if by that you mean a write up that merely argues that ''global warming'' is a misleading term.
 
Easily solved. Jamie and the others can put up all their images in his-res and without watermarks and allow the rest of us to "liberate" them if we so wish. They haven't lost anything, they say, and we only have our own set of ethics to contend with - and no too many, it seems. Everyone should be happy.
 
4) That zero-sum game changed as soon as Bob and Joe invented money, didn't it ?

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement 🙂

Roland.
Click to expand...

When you put "global warming" in quotes, I assume because you disagree it is real, correct? Do you disagree it is happening, or that it is human driven? (or neither)?

Last credible scientist (who I studied under) changed his tune a few months ago (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870). Would love to see a credible scientist that has done a legitimate study and has concluded it isnt happening. It is pretty much the entire scientific community that has confirmed it is happening, you may though disagree humans are the cause...but i'd be curious to see what science you point to (That isn't directly sponsored by big oil). my 0.02

just wondering, though i know this isnt on point with OP


PS. I didn't agree with the article for the most part. I agree with Roland on all his points but the one ^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom